Autopsy examination in sudden cardiac death: a current perspective on behalf of the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology.

In sudden cardiac death, an autopsy is an essential step in establishing a diagnosis of inherited cardiac disease and identifying families that require cardiac screening. To evaluate aspects of post-mortem practice in Europe, a questionnaire was designed and circulated to both clinical and forensic pathologists. There was a 48% response rate and information was obtained from 17 countries. The results showed a wide variety in the management of sudden cardiac death, with a general tendency towards a lack of thorough investigation. In up to 40% of cases, autopsies were not performed in subjects less than 50 years who may have died from cardiac disease. Reasons for this were lack of finance and lack of interest from police, legal authorities, and doctors. Only 50% of pathologists seem to follow a standard protocol for autopsy examination, apparently due to lack of expertise and/or training. When autopsies were performed, histology and toxicology were almost always taken, genetic studies were generally available and retention of the heart for specialist study was usually permitted. Our results suggest that although the standard of practice is appropriate in many centres, many more cases should have autopsies, especially in sudden deaths in subjects less than 50 years.

Methods for assessment of patient adherence to removable orthoses used after surgery or trauma to the appendicular skeleton: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to treatment is a key determinant of outcome for healthcare interventions. Whilst non-adherence has been well evidenced in settings such as drug therapy, information regarding patient adherence to orthoses, particularly in the acute setting, is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, summarise, and critically appraise reported methods for assessing adherence to removable orthoses in adults following acute injury or surgery. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of the Ovid versions of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Central, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SPORTDiscus identified complete papers published in English between 1990 and September 2018 reporting measurement of adherence to orthoses in adults following surgery or trauma to the appendicular skeleton. Only primary studies with reference to adherence in the title/abstract were included to maintain the focus of the review. Data extraction included study design, sample size, study population, orthosis studied, and instructions for use. Details of methods for assessing adherence were extracted, including instrument/method used, frequency of completion, number of items (if applicable), and score (if any) used to evaluate adherence overall. Validity and reliability of identified methods were assessed together with any conclusions drawn between adherence and outcomes in the study. RESULTS: Seventeen papers (5 randomised trials, 10 cohort studies, and 2 case series) were included covering upper (n = 13) and lower (n = 4) limb conditions. A variety of methods for assessing adherence were identified, including questionnaires (n = 10) with single (n = 3) or multiple items (n = 7), home diaries (n = 4), and discussions with the patient (n = 3). There was no consistency in the target behaviour assessed or in the timing or frequency of assessment or the scoring systems used. None of the measures was validated for use in the target population. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement and reporting of adherence to orthosis use is currently inconsistent. Further research is required to develop a measurement tool that provides a rigorous and reproducible assessment of adherence in this acute population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42016048462. Registered on 17/10/2016.

Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Innovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Effect of communicating phenotypic and genetic risk of coronary heart disease alongside web-based lifestyle advice: the INFORM Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether provision of web-based lifestyle advice and coronary heart disease risk information either based on phenotypic characteristics or phenotypic plus genetic characteristics affects changes in objectively measured health behaviours. METHODS: A parallel-group, open randomised trial including 956 male and female blood donors with no history of cardiovascular disease (mean [SD] age=56.7 [8.8] years) randomised to four study groups: control group (no information provided); web-based lifestyle advice only (lifestyle group); lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year coronary heart disease risk based on phenotypic characteristics (phenotypic risk estimate) (phenotypic group) and lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year coronary heart disease risk based on phenotypic (phenotypic risk estimate) and genetic characteristics (genetic risk estimate) (genetic group). The primary outcome was change in physical activity from baseline to 12 weeks assessed by wrist-worn accelerometer. RESULTS: 928 (97.1%) participants completed the trial. There was no evidence of intervention effects on physical activity (difference in adjusted mean change from baseline): lifestyle group vs control group 0.09 milligravity (mg) (95% CI -1.15 to 1.33); genetic group vs phenotypic group -0.33 mg (95% CI -1.55 to 0.90); phenotypic group and genetic group vs control group -0.52 mg (95% CI -1.59 to 0.55) and vs lifestyle group -0.61 mg (95% CI -1.67 to 0.46). There was no evidence of intervention effects on secondary biological, emotional and health-related behavioural outcomes except self-reported fruit and vegetable intake. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of risk information, whether based on phenotypic or genotypic characteristics, alongside web-based lifestyle advice did not importantly affect objectively measured levels of physical activity, other health-related behaviours, biological risk factors or emotional well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17721237; Pre-results.

The iBRA-2 (immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy audit) study: protocol for a prospective national multicentre cohort study to evaluate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the delivery of adjuvant therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer requiring a mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay the delivery of adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term oncological outcomes. High-quality evidence, however, is lacking. iBRA-2 is a national prospective multicentre cohort study that aims to investigate the effect of IBR on the delivery of adjuvant therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Breast and plastic surgery centres in the UK performing mastectomy with or without (±) IBR will be invited to participate in the study through the trainee research collaborative network. All women undergoing mastectomy ±â€…IBR for breast cancer between 1 July and 31 December 2016 will be included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data will be collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ±â€…IBR will be compared to determine the impact that IBR has on the time of delivery of adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 3000 patients from ∼50 centres are anticipated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed using the online Health Research Authority decision tool. This novel study will explore whether IBR impacts the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy. The study will provide valuable information to help patients and surgeons make more informed decisions about their surgical options. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative (MFAC) and the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS). Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals.

Information and Risk Modification Trial (INFORM): design of a randomised controlled trial of communicating different types of information about coronary heart disease risk, alongside lifestyle advice, to achieve change in health-related behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death globally. Primary prevention of CVD requires cost-effective strategies to identify individuals at high risk in order to help target preventive interventions. An integral part of this approach is the use of CVD risk scores. Limitations in previous studies have prevented reliable inference about the potential advantages and the potential harms of using CVD risk scores as part of preventive strategies. We aim to evaluate short-term effects of providing different types of information about coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, alongside lifestyle advice, on health-related behaviours. METHODS/DESIGN: In a parallel-group, open randomised trial, we are allocating 932 male and female blood donors with no previous history of CVD aged 40-84 years in England to either no intervention (control group) or to one of three active intervention groups: i) lifestyle advice only; ii) lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year CHD risk based on phenotypic characteristics; and iii) lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year CHD risk based on phenotypic and genetic characteristics. The primary outcome is change in objectively measured physical activity. Secondary outcomes include: objectively measured dietary behaviours; cardiovascular risk factors; current medication and healthcare usage; perceived risk; cognitive evaluation of provision of CHD risk scores; and psychological outcomes. The follow-up assessment takes place 12 weeks after randomisation. The experiences, attitudes and concerns of a subset of participants will be also studied using individual interviews and focus groups. DISCUSSION: The INFORM study has been designed to provide robust findings about the short-term effects of providing different types of information on estimated 10-year CHD risk and lifestyle advice on health-related behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

Ferrous sulfate supplementation causes significant gastrointestinal side-effects in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The tolerability of oral iron supplementation for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia is disputed. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to quantify the odds of GI side-effects in adults related to current gold standard oral iron therapy, namely ferrous sulfate. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating GI side-effects that included ferrous sulfate and a comparator that was either placebo or intravenous (i.v.) iron. Random effects meta-analysis modelling was undertaken and study heterogeneity was summarised using I2 statistics. RESULTS: Forty three trials comprising 6831 adult participants were included. Twenty trials (n = 3168) had a placebo arm and twenty three trials (n = 3663) had an active comparator arm of i.v. iron. Ferrous sulfate supplementation significantly increased risk of GI side-effects versus placebo with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.32 [95% CI 1.74-3.08, p<0.0001, I2 = 53.6%] and versus i.v. iron with an OR of 3.05 [95% CI 2.07-4.48, p<0.0001, I2 = 41.6%]. Subgroup analysis in IBD patients showed a similar effect versus i.v. iron (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.34-7.36, p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). Likewise, subgroup analysis of pooled data from 7 RCTs in pregnant women (n = 1028) showed a statistically significant increased risk of GI side-effects for ferrous sulfate although there was marked heterogeneity in the data (OR = 3.33, 95% CI 1.19-9.28, p = 0.02, I2 = 66.1%). Meta-regression did not provide significant evidence of an association between the study OR and the iron dose. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis confirms that ferrous sulfate is associated with a significant increase in gastrointestinal-specific side-effects but does not find a relationship with dose.

The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors. METHODS/DESIGN: INTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of 'deferrals' due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors' physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.

Dietary iron does not impact the quality of life of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: In animal models, excess luminal iron exacerbates colonic inflammation and cancer development. Moreover, in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with mild to moderate disease activity dietary fortificant iron intake is inversely related to quality of life. Here we sought to determine whether dietary iron intakes were also related to quality of life in IBD patients in remission. METHODS: Forty eight patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), 42 of which had quiescent disease during this observational study, and 53 healthy control subjects completed quality of life questionnaires and 7-day food diaries. For comparative analysis, 34/group were matched and the linear relationship between dietary iron intakes (total, haem, non-haem or fortificant) and EuroQol quality of life measures was investigated. For UC patients the linear relationship between dietary iron intakes and the scores from the disease specific inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) was also considered. RESULTS: The intake of dietary iron, and its various sub-fractions, were not associated with quality of life (EuroQol) in patients with quiescent disease or in healthy control subjects. The picture was similar for the 42 quiescent UC patients when disease-specific IBDQ was used. However, the 6 patients who relapsed during the study again showed an inverse association between IBDQ and dietary iron intake (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that dietary iron does not impact on quality of life in quiescent UC patients but support that, once the disease is triggered, luminal iron may be a permissive factor for exacerbation of disease activity resulting in lower quality of life.

Dietary fortificant iron intake is negatively associated with quality of life in patients with mildly active inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anaemia and oral iron supplementation have been associated negatively with quality of life, and with adverse effects, respectively, in subjects with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of oral iron is not understood in this patient group. The present case-control study investigated whether dietary iron intake impacts on quality of life in IBD patients. METHODS: Quality of life, habitual dietary iron intakes and iron requirements were assessed in 29 patients with inactive or mildly active IBD as well as in 28 healthy control subjects. RESULTS: As expected, quality of life was worse in IBD patients as a whole in comparison to healthy controls according to EuroQol score and EuroQol VAS percentage (6.9 ± 1.6 vs 5.3 ± 0.6; p< 0.0001 and 77 ± 14% vs 88 ± 12%; p=0.004 respectively). For IBD subjects, 21/29 were iron deplete based upon serum iron responses to oral iron but, overall, were non-anaemic with mean haemoglobin of 13.3 ± 1.5 g/dL, and there was no difference in their quality of life compared to 8/29 iron replete subjects (Hb 14.0 ± 0.8 g/dL). Interestingly, total dietary iron intake was significantly negatively associated with quality of life in IBD patients, specifically for non-haem iron and, more specifically, for fortificant iron. Moreover, for total non-haem iron the negative association disappeared when fortificant iron values were subtracted. Finally, further sub-analysis indicated that the negative association between (fortificant) dietary iron intake and quality of life in IBD patients is driven by findings in patients with mildly active disease rather than in patients with quiescent disease. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency per se (i.e. without concomitant anaemia) does not appear to further affect quality of life in IBD patients with inactive or mildly active disease. However, in this preliminary study, dietary iron intake, particularly fortificant iron, appears to be significantly negatively associated with quality of life in patients with mildly active disease.